203 replies to this topic

[Duke]

Perhaps the project could have been incorporated into an apt/condo-plex located within the city.

[D's TK]

Single family homes and it doesn't matter who lives there. I wouldn't object if the city used RDA money to subsidize the housing in that zoning as long as we weren't granting so many variances.

It was NOT that long ago there was meeting after meeting trying to address the traffic issues on Sibley Street. It just seems so ridiculous to grant variances to a project that is going to increase traffic in an already congested area.

Okay, so single family homes vs. a 19-unit apartment complex. How would a cluster of single family homes affect the traffic issue?? Most people living in houses drive just as do most apartment dwellers so I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind this. Also, single family homes, even if they were considered "affordable" would probably be out of reach of the people who the apartments are going to serve. Unless they were rental homes used for the same purpose (transitional psychiatric housing)and then how would that be any different?

[Revolutionist]

I think some people are missing the point that (almost) nobody is saying we should not accomodate the people who need this type of assistance.

I can't emphasize enough the separation between the "people who will be served" and the "proposed development project that requires substantial variances, and has a large and negative impact on the area - regardless of who lives in it once it is complete".

There are areas in the city that are already zoned for this density and type of housing, that have adequate transportation, and are conveniently located within the city of Folsom. And I don't mean non-desireable locations. I mean areas that the traffic impact will be minimal, the architecture will more closely fit the proposed project, easy access to public transportation, etc.

Again, its not about the people who will be served -- it is about the impact high density housing would have on an already overtaxed traffic pattern, and about how does the architecture fit within the well established and important historic area of the city. This particular project is being pushed for this location, not for any particular benefit to the people it serves, but only to the benefit of the developer.

[Robert Giacometti]

Okay, so single family homes vs. a 19-unit apartment complex. How would a cluster of single family homes affect the traffic issue?? Most people living in houses drive just as do most apartment dwellers so I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind this. Also, single family homes, even if they were considered "affordable" would probably be out of reach of the people who the apartments are going to serve. Unless they were rental homes used for the same purpose (transitional psychiatric housing)and then how would that be any different?

My disappointment in this process is that our leaders have tools and other options they can use to better manage growth. They don't have to approve a rezone that allows " clusters" of SF homes, they can choose to approve the same density that is consistent with the existing neighborhood, honoring setbacks, protecting the Oak Trees and enforcing the parking requirements.

I would suspect doing it this way would limit the impacts of development for the existing neighborhood. The existing neighbors have rights too!

All we hear are excuses why the council has to approve projects. I get fed up with hearing this when there are options to consider.

The Planning Commision declined approval for this project....what does that tell you?

[old soldier]

something just came to mind...folks build houses and apartments not to just provide shelter but to make money.. I think old Robert G said the area the developer wants to build would get a bigger subsidy somehow.

when I was a kid my aunt gave me five dollars to buy my cousins ice cream. it was going to cost $4.50. On the way out of the house my grandma gave me two dollars as well as what I would call a subsidy. I got the ice cream for everyone and walked away from the deal with $2.50 rather than just $.50

If I got this right we may be barking up the wring tree about whose going to live there cause its really about getting the council to dance again to this particular developers tune.

if old soldier has got this wrong he is not going to tangle with complicated issues next time

[D's TK]

My disappointment in this process is that our leaders have tools and other options they can use to better manage growth. They don't have to approve a rezone that allows " clusters" of SF homes, they can choose to approve the same density that is consistent with the existing neighborhood, honoring setbacks, protecting the Oak Trees and enforcing the parking requirements.

I would suspect doing it this way would limit the impacts of development for the existing neighborhood. The existing neighbors have rights too!

All we hear are excuses why the council has to approve projects. I get fed up with hearing this when there are options to consider.

The Planning Commision declined approval for this project....what does that tell you?

I do understand your frustration but I am still a little confused....even if they put in single family homes of the same density of the surrounding neighborhood, wouldn't this still have a negative impact on the traffic? I am just trying to figure how a 19-unit apartment complex would be worse than more single family homes.

[cw68]

I do understand your frustration but I am still a little confused....even if they put in single family homes of the same density of the surrounding neighborhood, wouldn't this still have a negative impact on the traffic? I am just trying to figure how a 19-unit apartment complex would be worse than more single family homes.

I'm assuming that there wouldn't be 19 single family homes in the same spot, thereby reducing the number of cars, etc. that would go along with the number of residences.

[Robert Giacometti]

I do understand your frustration but I am still a little confused....even if they put in single family homes of the same density of the surrounding neighborhood, wouldn't this still have a negative impact on the traffic? I am just trying to figure how a 19-unit apartment complex would be worse than more single family homes.

Yes, if they approve development of any kind it will have an impact on traffic. It seems logical the lower the density of housing could have less impacts on traffic. Our council uses words like managed growth and smart planning, well here is their chance to walk their talk or do they just use these buzz words to get themselves elected?

They have acknowledged there are other sites already zoned for this type of housing. These other sites DON'T have the current traffic issues and may not need as many variances, so lets do smart planning, let's do managed growth and tell the applicant NO and have them select another location.

If the applicant was truly altrustic and dedicated to provided this valuable housing for those who need it, why would they be opposed to relocating it to another site? Is it really about them making MORE money while compromising the communities standards?

[FolsomRider]

Sorry for the long absence but school and work are pulling me in two different directions...
I apologize for the length but I'm hitting a couple of questions here...


Regarding the "quality standard" I don't see where the city is chartered (as I would say) to deliver a standard of living. The standard appears to be "assumed"... The City is a legal representative of the citizens and are there to enforce law, pass ordinances. But "standard" is nowhere in any of the documents which define our rights as Americans. We have CCRs and HOAs to "maintain" standards in our subdivision s but even those are encroaching on "God-given" liberties. How many moved here from the Bay Area... Because the "standard" down there declined??? Were the slums encroaching on your humble abode? Add me to that list but guess what, it doesn't work. Be happy where you are as you are in a place far better than most in this world.

Regarding the property values with "these kinds of people" living next door, as a former real estate agent, disclosure of proximity of a "protected class of people" would probably be a HUD violation... Unless a safety hazard could be legally proven... And still then, it would create a firestorm of legal and civil issues. And, honestly, I don't see this transitional housing as having a negative effect on property values. No more than traffic does and i don't see the people that I would expect to be served by this form of housing driving a lot and adding a lot to the already congested traffic pattern. if anyone wants to argue that 19 additional people will create a deadlock in traffic...

Regarding the hypothetical daycare issue, if I'm running a daycare and have to worry about ANY, I repeat ANY class of citizens being a danger to the children in my facility then I don't belong in the business. If the building of such transitional housing would create a new danger to the children in my care, then that would be a problem that already exists and is not magnified by the proximity of transitional housing for mentally disabled persons. Besides, I am not so worried about the 19 people living near by than I am the several thousand who drive by. My daycare facility better be prepared to protect children from any implied threat before it opens the doors for business on day one. I'm would be far more worried about placing my kids into Kindercare by the Post Office, with the public accessibility and high traffic 24/7, than I would be in a facility tucked in near Old town Folsom and near diagnosed and treated mentally disabled persons. Notice the same issue, the untreated are more dangerous than the treated.

Looking at the incident at Virgina Tech, NASA and Colorado U (read about how this kids rights were trampled upon), we as a society have much bigger worries than 19 mentally disabled persons in a transitional home. The 19 people that would be served in this housing would not be placed there if they were a threat to anyone, themselves or those around them. That is the LAW! How many people are spending as much time asking their elementary school principal about how they are going to keep the p..ss'd off 12 year old from bringing daddy's .22 caliber pistol into school? Society has bigger fish to fry than 19 mentally disabled persons, and the first issue is ourselves and our attitudes.

In Summary, this housing complex isn't any farther away from my backyard than it is anyone else's. The mere existence of mentally ill persons in the world places the entire issue in my back yard and I'm not shying away from it. I delivered newspapers to several homes for the mentally ill as a 12 year old and will tell you from experience that they wanted nothing more than a friendly face to say "Hi" to. i employed mentally disabled people in a restaurant i managed and can attest that they worked harder with stronger ethics and morals than any high schooler I know! And the people I dealt with were far more worse off than anyone who will be in a transitional housing situation. I may not live right next to these housing units but as surely as I sit here typing this I will gladly stop by and drop off a bag of groceries for any resident of that complex or help them out in any way, may it be at their transitional home, in public, anywhere. I'd rather see the kid at Belaire offer to take help one of these disabled persons than waste their time walking groceries to the Lexus of some physically fit snooty lady who doesn't want to break a sweat.

Call me a tear-jerk liberal for saying this but I think there should be mandatory service for all citizens, working with the disabled before anyone is allowed to pass judgment upon them.

Judge not, yest ye be judged. And, no, I'm not a holier than thou religious fanatic.

Duke: I totally agree with you. And as I do work in the medical world where I do know the laws of Protected Health Information (PHI), there has not been any illegal disclosure here. The medical health of the tenents nor their personal informaton such has name, SSN, etc. has not been disclosed. The taxpayers that fund such a project have every right to know the purpose, and intentions of such projects. We as taxpayers want to know and have the right to disagree on many projects, such as how our dollars are spent with schools. We question this project for many reasons, just as we should question school dollars spent.

FolsomRider: Just curious... would your support for such a project be any different if a 19 unit complex just as this was being built next door to you? Would you worry, even a little bit, about your property value declining, safety of the neighborhood? What if one of your family members worked at a good daycare located within close proximaty to this location and the facility went out of business due to parents not wanting their children near such a development? Your family member would then have to deal with unemployment, is that fair?

In my opinion I would guess that 90% of the people in favor of this project are only doing so because it doesn't involve their house value, their neighborhood, their child's preschool, their family member's job... for them it's a out-of-sight-out-of-mind attitude such as the old saying...It's ok to build it they're saying.. as long as it's not in their back yard.

Yes, these people do deserve housing but the location should be more agreeable to all that are involved. Many of us have opposed this and yet it's like the City is not hearing our voices.